After two months of trying to understand the way these LSAT questions were worded, I finally get the hang of it!! I should have subscribed to this course sooner :')
Anyone having issues here with the "only" examples causing the result to flip, just break it down into what is "causing" something to be the case. Remember if -> then.
For example -
In Aristotle's view, universals exist only where they are instantiated.
Means
If there is a universal THEN there MUST be a universal which is instantiated.
U -> I or If U then I
Let's try without the ONLY.
In Aristotle's view, universals exist where they are instantiated.
Now it means -
If there is an instantiated universal, THEN there is an existing universal.
I -> U or if I then U. It "flips" because now we are saying everywhere there is an existing there is an instantiated. No exceptions. We do not know in the first example if I -> U because there could be many other ways to get to instantiated. The second one does not allow for exceptions like the first, at least strictly logically speaking.
So the test on is on the computer. We can only highlight and underline. Is there a video that shows how to do all this writing on a separate piece of paper? I understand the instructor is writing for educational purposes, but how do we deploy the same strategies on the test?
One of the things that helped me out a lot in the problems where the relationship is less clearly elucidated is something I learned in my intro logic class. Repurposing sentences in a way that is All are "persons who " or "things that "
Example: Roses always provide a stunning display of color.
All roses are objects that always provide a stunning display
Is it fine to just memorize the condition indicators and translate english to lawgic based on that? because that's what I am doing and it seems to be working but I don't know if I am then oversimplifying it and not actually absorbing the argument. But i think that further translating the lawgic into the contrapositive form forces me to absorb the argument? I don't know, I just don't want to take the easy way and then not get what I need to out of the skill.
Will there ever be an example where we are given a question that doesn't have a clearly outlined conditional indicator? As it was mentioned before, the list of indicators provided was over-inclusive and under-inclusive. In this case, how do we identify which is necessary (Group 2) and which is sufficient (Group 1) without the help of an identifier on our list?
I have found it is helpful when unsure to try to state the argument in reverse. For example:
The rights of businesses and the duty of government conflict -> the main issue is finding a successful compromise
This would be incorrect the other way around because it is not true and does not make sense to argue that all cases where the main issue is finding a successful compromise stem from the rights of businesses and the duty of governments conflicting
These skill builders are great for identifying sufficient and necessary causes but I am having trouble making valid inferences. So I made up an example, please let me know if I am on the right track. For question 4: lets say Amy has 18 books overdue, we can make a valid inference that she will be fined because it triggers the necessary. However, if the premise is Amy is fined, we cannot make a valid inference that she has more than one book overdue because the rule says having more than one book is sufficient to be fined, but it doesn't say it’s the only reason someone might be fined.
So I got 5/5 here versus 2/5 in the previous skill builder and I basically did it by thinking about these statements in terms of whatever is stronger = Necessary Condition and whatever is weaker = Sufficient Condition but is this an incorrect way to think about this? I don't want to start doing this all the time when it might lead me down the wrong path of Lawgic. Is this a correct way to consider sufficient --> necessary arguments or am I just making life more difficult for myself?
5
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
59 comments
I always get 5/5 on these and the real LSAT questions I don't..
way to throw in a G1 in a skill builder of G2 indicator statements haha. got 4/5
5/5 !
finally a 5/5 YAYY
5/5 yayyyyy
I had my brain-blast moment during this one. Easy-peasy 5/5 compared to my struggles in the prior ones!!
After two months of trying to understand the way these LSAT questions were worded, I finally get the hang of it!! I should have subscribed to this course sooner :')
5/5 :)
5/5! yay
Yay finally 5/5!!!!
Anyone having issues here with the "only" examples causing the result to flip, just break it down into what is "causing" something to be the case. Remember if -> then.
For example -
In Aristotle's view, universals exist only where they are instantiated.
Means
If there is a universal THEN there MUST be a universal which is instantiated.
U -> I or If U then I
Let's try without the ONLY.
In Aristotle's view, universals exist where they are instantiated.
Now it means -
If there is an instantiated universal, THEN there is an existing universal.
I -> U or if I then U. It "flips" because now we are saying everywhere there is an existing there is an instantiated. No exceptions. We do not know in the first example if I -> U because there could be many other ways to get to instantiated. The second one does not allow for exceptions like the first, at least strictly logically speaking.
#HELP
Any tips of not confusing necessary and sufficient conditions in more complex examples like these? Right now, I'm only getting 4 out of every 5 right.
#HELP
So the test on is on the computer. We can only highlight and underline. Is there a video that shows how to do all this writing on a separate piece of paper? I understand the instructor is writing for educational purposes, but how do we deploy the same strategies on the test?
Chat I get it!!
5/5!!!
i find this practice exhausting but super helpful. the contrapositives really help clarify whether i got the order correct.
One of the things that helped me out a lot in the problems where the relationship is less clearly elucidated is something I learned in my intro logic class. Repurposing sentences in a way that is All are "persons who " or "things that "
Example: Roses always provide a stunning display of color.
All roses are objects that always provide a stunning display
do we need to say exactly what the answer states to be correct? this is what I wrote for question 5 (this also might be a dumb question):
the rights of businesses and the duty of government conflict -> finding a successful compromise
/finding a successful compromise -> /rights of businesses and the duty of government conflict
Is it fine to just memorize the condition indicators and translate english to lawgic based on that? because that's what I am doing and it seems to be working but I don't know if I am then oversimplifying it and not actually absorbing the argument. But i think that further translating the lawgic into the contrapositive form forces me to absorb the argument? I don't know, I just don't want to take the easy way and then not get what I need to out of the skill.
my ex said they got Chlamydiae from a tractor seat. which must mean that Chlamydiae host cells can grow on tractor seats. curious!
Will there ever be an example where we are given a question that doesn't have a clearly outlined conditional indicator? As it was mentioned before, the list of indicators provided was over-inclusive and under-inclusive. In this case, how do we identify which is necessary (Group 2) and which is sufficient (Group 1) without the help of an identifier on our list?
I have found it is helpful when unsure to try to state the argument in reverse. For example:
The rights of businesses and the duty of government conflict -> the main issue is finding a successful compromise
This would be incorrect the other way around because it is not true and does not make sense to argue that all cases where the main issue is finding a successful compromise stem from the rights of businesses and the duty of governments conflicting
These skill builders are great for identifying sufficient and necessary causes but I am having trouble making valid inferences. So I made up an example, please let me know if I am on the right track. For question 4: lets say Amy has 18 books overdue, we can make a valid inference that she will be fined because it triggers the necessary. However, if the premise is Amy is fined, we cannot make a valid inference that she has more than one book overdue because the rule says having more than one book is sufficient to be fined, but it doesn't say it’s the only reason someone might be fined.
Could the last question also be written as:
rights of business conflicts with duty of government → /(successful compromise)
successful compromise → /(rights of business conflicts with duty of government)?
So I got 5/5 here versus 2/5 in the previous skill builder and I basically did it by thinking about these statements in terms of whatever is stronger = Necessary Condition and whatever is weaker = Sufficient Condition but is this an incorrect way to think about this? I don't want to start doing this all the time when it might lead me down the wrong path of Lawgic. Is this a correct way to consider sufficient --> necessary arguments or am I just making life more difficult for myself?